[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Roger's side re: new WhoSun Dec 7 12:17:46 PST 1997
Hi once again...
I found an interview with Roger to present the other
side of what Pete was saying in what I posted yesterday.
This is (c) The Times Mirror Company, from the L.A. Times
10/13/94.
---
Headline: Q&A With Roger Daltrey/'I Love Playin' These Songs'
People tend to observe their 50th birthdays in special ways,
but no one has marked the milestone quite the way Roger Daltrey
did last February. The English singer rented Carnegie Hall for
two nights, hired an orchestra, collected guest stars ranging
from Eddie Vedder to the Chieftains and sang the music that
made him famous--the songs Pete Townshend wrote for the Who.
Now the "Daltrey Sings Townshend" show is on a US tour that
arrives at the Greek Theatre on Saturday. There are no guest
stars on board, but the music will be played by a full
orchestra, and a band that includes Pete's brother Simon
Townshend on guitar, Ringo's son Zak Starkey on drums and
Who bassist John Entwistle.[Shoudn't this name have gone
first?--JP]
The Who, generally ranked behind only the Beatles and the
Rolling Stones in rock stature, last convened in 1989 for
a 25th anniversary tour. With Townshend having no interest
in resuming, this show represents the next best thing for
his two partners. In a recent interview, Daltrey talked
about the enterprise and the music it salutes.
*Q: What's the ference between Carnegie Hall concert and
this touring show?
*A:Carnegie was a very difficult show for me with all those
guests. When you warm up to this stuff, it's difficult to
stop and start. But we needed the guests to pay for the
show. They were there for the economics of it. It was the
only way we got Pay-Per-View, which covered some of the
cost of puttin' the show on...
*Q: How did it go from that special event to a national
tour?
*A: Some of the songs in that show we'd never played with
an orchestra before, so the first night we were really
wingin' it, and it was a nightmare for us.
But the second night, when it came together, I thought,
'Wow, when it does work, this is very, very special.' And
I thought this would be a really good to take on the road.
Because it's our 30th anniversary. And Pete doesn't want to
go on the road anymore. It's a shame to let this music just
exist on records that are owned by a few people. 'Cause
when you hear it live it's still as fresh as it was the
day we first played it. The energy is still there.
*Q: Were you confident that the public would go for it?
*A: Well, you're never confident. But it does not matter
to me whether it's 50, 500, or 50,000 people. An audience
is and audience. And I love playin' these songs, the band's
great. I could re-create the Who very, very easily if I wanted
to.[Really?--JP] This isn't the Who, it's something different.
People were skeptical when the Who went out in '89 with a
bigger band. They went, "Oh, it won't be the same." But when they
actually got to the shows, they found out that it wasn't less,
it was more. And I think this show is very similar. It's not
the same. It can never be the same. But it's good in it's own
right.
*Q: Have you changed the songs very much?
*A: Some of them. *Baba O'Riley* and things like that are
very different. But just to hear the music orchestrated gives
it a whole different feel. It's much more dramatic. And
Townshend's music really does lend itself to being orchestrated.
When they're played by real instruments--I mean anything
can sound better than a $#!% synthesizer--the music really does
gain a new dimension. You can only get that depth of sound with
an orchestra.
*Q: What makes his songs so special?
*A: I think his structures are totally original, where
I think a lot of rock'n'roll structures are plagarized. I
feel that his honesty in his writing takes incredible courage.
They're not glib pop lyrics. There's always a greater depth
to Pete's writing than the average rock song.It's the honesty
that takes the amount of courage that I admire so much.
*Q: Do you still regret the Who breakup?
*A: If it was up to me, we would have never broken up. It
seemed silly. You can have years and years off, you can have
10 years off if you want, but why break it up? For what? It
seems to me we never fulfilled our capabilities. The possibilities
with the Who were much greater than the things we ever
achieved.
Growing up, you change, and things change, and it's the
staying together that's important. You end when you really
can't come up with anything else. We ended when Pete coudn't
come up with anything else. Thaty doesn't necessarily mean
the band coudn't have.
THat's what I find sad. It's almost like the baby had got
fed up with his toy and thrown it away. That's what it feels
like. I do respect that he got fed up with it, but I can't help
but he honest and say that's what it feels like from my
position...You know, bands are about give and take. And sharing.
---
There's a little more about the present rock scene's lack
of originality, but those are the highlights, IMO.
Once again, all spelling errors, etc. are more than likely
mine.
--Jon